Ok, conglomerating a bunch of replies into one here...
And Michael Moore doesn't lie. Yes, he picks and chooses facts for his purpose, and places emphasis on those that support his arguments, and he states a lot of opinions
Not entirely correct. Mr. Moore has made some factually incorrect statements before in his films. In Bowling for Columbine
he claimed that a plaque at the US Air Force Acadamy "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972. It was the largest bombing campaign of the Vietnam War." (the DVD version of the film takes this even further, rather than revising it closer to the truth).
The actual plaque inscription is available here (and no, I'm not endorsing this site, but it came up on a Google search): http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/planeplaque.htm
There have been other issues with BFC in particular, namely some very dodgy editing that misrepresents positions and timelines. While he may have won an Oscar for it, I suspect that it's not his best film.
That said, Moore has stated that he's had a far larger number of fact checkers go over Fahrenheit 911
to ensure accuracy. Yes, there's still going to be bias, and it will be up to the viewers to find the "rest of the truth" in some cases, but he may've learned a lesson from some of the issues regarding BFC.
Everyone knows that the Bushes, the Bin Ladens and the Saudi royals have close ties
Actually, I suspect less than 30% of the populace knows of the ties in any detail. Do you know them? No googling or checking other references. There's a wide gap between someone saying "yeah, they're old buddies" and actually showing a long term, mutually beneficial relationship that affects policy. F911 is probably the first "mainstream" work showing this.
The FCC has set decency standards for the limited amount of broadcast stations. What is wrong with this? Is it new?
Actually, yes it is new. The FCC has largely allowed indecency claims to slide unless they were particularly egregious. Now they're prosecuting every little thing... if they don't like you. The prosecution is by no means even handed -- Howard Stern is being cited while Oprah is not. I would agree that Oprah crosses (or comes near) the line far less often than Stern, but if you're going to set out a policy such as this then you'd better enforce it even handedly. That's not happening.
Do you think that there should be no decency regulation at all for broadcast TV and radio?
I can agree with some degree of regulation, but far less than what is occurring now. The FCC won't even attempt to define what is "indecent", and so we have a policy that is utterly impossible to determine if you're on the right side of it or not. And, frankly, I'm a big fan of if you don't like it then turn it off. If you don't like your kids watching/listening to it, then take steps to show them not only that you don't want them doing so, but why
. Too many parents are unwilling to do this though, and so want the government to police the airwaves for them -- and thus enforce their morals and ethics on others without their consent.This comment was edited on Jun 24, 10:31.